Talk:Wadi Zikt

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

Western Asia: Fujairah / Northern Emirates / United Arab Emirates Low‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Fujairah work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Northern Emirates (assessed as Mid-importance).
	United Arab Emirates portal This article is supported by WikiProject United Arab Emirates (assessed as Mid-importance).

Moved discussion[edit]

This discussion has been moved from User talk:Sam Sailor (permalink).

Hiya. You AfD'd then withdrew on the article Jabal Zikt. I've just discovered - after the exhaustive process of AfDing almost 100 of John Carter's mad GEO settlement stubs for the UAE - that he's done just the same with these mountain names. They're cruft. There are a small number of mountains, hills and tells in the UAE which are named and geographically notable, but Carter appears to have gone through every place name (or a similar 1987 database derived from tagging names from the 1960s Trucial Oman Scouts survey which is madly out of date and just plain wrong - a long story I'm happy to tell you if you have the time) and just given it a mountain. There are mountains around Zikt, they're the Hajjar Mountains but each mound doesn't have an individual name locally. So just because there's a wadi and dam at Zikt doesn't mean there's a 'Mount Zikt' or Jebel (NOT Jabal - that's an archaic transliteration) Zikt. In fact, the article's waymarker doesn't even point to a mountain or hill. We have a number of notable and named mountains and hills - Jebel Ali, Jebel Jais, Jebel Buhais and so on - and it's right they're identified, sourced and catalogued. But the 'Carter Mountains' are another series of problematic article creations that should be deleted. You were right to AfD it (the German bot article is another false positive, it's just based around the WP pin location) and I'd like to do just that. What's the best way to go about doing so, do you think? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Sadly there are loads of the damn things and it's going to be wearying checking them all... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Alexandermcnabb. I had hoped we could use se:Jabal Zikt for expansion and verification, but I trust your judgement in these matters. Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion does not mention withdrawn nominations; the question is if we then default to the six months, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months., or if this is a case where "there is something new to say", which I am inclined to say is the case. Why not wait a month or two? Sam Sailor 13:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there's no rush, it's been festering for 10 years or so. Trouble is there's loads of 'em! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heya - I moved Jabal Zikt to Wadi_Zikt which struck me as elegant. Hope you concur! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I can think of editors who would prefer to start a new article, and thus get the creator credits, and send the old title to AFD. Moving (renaming) a page in main space and repurposing it is done maliciously by some WP:SPAs, and is then called an article hijack. Obviously that is not the case here, rather contrary you are reducing process, and with Spinningspark's comments here I think we are all good. Sam Sailor 10:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't pretend for a second I didn't do a little sigh at the loss of a new article! :) Thanks for the blush on the autopatrol application! :P Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandermcnabb, you're welcome. Sam Sailor 10:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the repurposing, I just have two comments. Imo, the page would be better at Zikt rather than Wadi Zikt. On the Piper aircraft, if it was once a notable landmark, it is still notable now per WP:NTEMP. If it isn't there anymore, change to the past tense rather than removing the passage altogether. SpinningSpark 14:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to move it, fine by me. You could argue the wadi is more notable than the settlement as it's not much of a settlement and it's a mighty fine wadi. The aircraft was used as a direction marker for the route to Wadi Wurrayah in Dariush Zandi's book 'Offroad in the Emirates' and so was known to many expats 25 years back, although it's absence was known to many more after it rotted away and the remains were removed and everyone got lost because there wasn't a plane where the book said there was one and the publisher never revised the text in subsequent editions. Is a crashed plane a notable landmark? I tended to 'no' on that one, but again if you want to keep it, it's no biggie. Warayah is now a major nature reserve and so you can't drive to it any more that way in any case. And we should be doing this on the Wadi Zikt talk page and not cluttering up Sam's kitchen here... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um...I was pinged here so I can only presume my opinion was wanted here. SpinningSpark 17:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @Spinningspark: Absolutely, there's no problem. Sam Sailor 17:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source reliability[edit]

@SummerPhDv2.0: I've undone your edit that removed a source as unreliable. You removed the source, but left the information it was citing in place. Unreliable or not, that still remains the source of the information. Tag it as unreliable if you must, but don't separate text from its source. SpinningSpark 11:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "source" was a pseudo-book from IBP. It is an automatically generated, ever-changing compilation of Wikipedia articles, without proper attribution. It would only exist in physical form if someone were to purchase a physical copy.

Theoretically, you could open the claimed source, figure out which Wikipedia article the section came from (and, if needed, at what point and time), see if the material had a source at that point, see if that source is reliable and verify that it supports the material. You could do all of that.

The handful of times I have done that, the statement came from the very article I was working on. Someone sees an unsourced statement, searches for a source and finds this non-book that includes exactly what they are looking for. As a closed loop, if the article had said "The Moon is made of Sage Derby cheese", they'd find a souse for it.

I've removed the "information" this was cited for, though it could not have been the source of it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that this is an awful source. But I don't think the information was copied from Wikipedia. Almost certainly, it was copied from somewhere, possibly Places to visit in Fujairah on the Visit Emirates website, but definitely not Wikipedia. I'll let your deletion stand, I wouldn't be all that comfortable changing the source to that either. SpinningSpark 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]